18. The Incarnation: Nature, Person, and Assumption

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

The Assumption of Nature vs. Person #

• Central question: Did the Son of God assume a human person or merely human nature?
• Thomas argues he assumed nature only, not a pre-existing person
• Key distinction: A person is an individual substance of a rational nature (individual suppositum)
• The assumed human nature has no independent personality; it subsists in the divine person

The Geometric Analogy: Point and Line #

• Divine person = pre-existing point
• Assumed human nature = line drawn to that point
• The line does not have an endpoint until it reaches the point
• Similarly, human nature does not possess its own personality until assumed by the divine Word
• This illustrates why the person cannot be “pre-understood” in the assumption; rather, the divine person is the terminus (endpoint/limit) of the assumption

Why Human Nature Was Assumed Individually, Not Universally #

• The question: Should Christ have assumed universal human nature (abstracted from all individuals) rather than individual human nature?
• Thomas’s answer: This was not suitable for three reasons:
  1. Universal nature cannot subsist by itself (it pertains to sensible matter and requires individuals)
  2. Universal nature cannot perform individual acts of merit or demerit
  3. Universal nature would not be sensible/visible; but Christ appeared visibly to men
• A subsisting universal nature would contradict Aristotelian metaphysics and Damascene’s teaching on incarnation

Two Senses of “Common” #

• Common by predication: Said of many (e.g., “human” predicated of many individuals)
• Common by causality: Cause of many (e.g., Christ as universal cause of salvation, not by genus/species but by efficacy)
• Christ is not common Savior through universal nature but through being universal cause
• This distinction is crucial for understanding how one individual (Christ) can save all men

Key Arguments #

Against Assuming a Human Person #

• Damascene’s text: Human nature was assumed in the individual, yet this does not entail that a person was assumed
• Augustine’s doctrine: God assumed human nature, not a human person
• Logical consequence: If a person were assumed, there would be two persons—the divine person assuming, and the human person assumed
• The “consumption” argument: The divine person impedes the natural human personality from arising, just as drawing a line to a pre-existing point prevents the line from having its own endpoint

Against Assuming Universal Nature #

• Subsistence argument: Universal nature, as it exists apart from sensible matter, cannot subsist by itself (Aristotle, Physics VII)
• Operation argument: Universal nature performs only universal operations, which do not merit or demerit
• Visibility argument: Universal nature is intelligible, not sensible; but Christ must appear visible to men
• Divine understanding objection: If human nature existed in the divine mind, it would be identical to the divine nature, making the Incarnation eternal (impossible)
• Human understanding objection: If human nature existed in human minds, Christ would only be understood to assume it, not really assume it—making the Incarnation a fiction

Important Definitions #

Suppositum / Hypostasis (ὑπόστασις) #

• The underlying individual substance; in rational nature, equivalent to person
• A person is defined as an individual substance of a rational nature

Assumption (ἀσσούμπτιο) #

• The taking of something to another
• What is assumed must be pre-understood to the assuming agent (e.g., matter must be understood before it is moved)
• However, in the Incarnation, the divine person is the terminus (end/limit), not the beginning, of the assumption

Id se (“towards itself”) #

• Understood negatively: “not towards another”
• Nothing is really towards itself; the phrase emphasizes what is not the case

Examples & Illustrations #

The Line and Point #

• A line drawn to a pre-existing point does not have its own endpoint before reaching that point
• Similarly, human nature assumed by the divine person does not have a prior personality
• The divine person becomes the terminus of the assumption

The Two Senses of “Through” (Per) #

• God made my body through my parents: Parents as instrumental causes
• My parents made my body through God: Parents act through God’s power as the principal cause
• Christ forgives sins through the priest: Priest as instrument
• The priest forgives sins through Christ: Priest acts through Christ’s delegated power
• These illustrate how the same relation can be expressed in opposite directions with different meanings

The King and Bailiff #

• King acts on citizens through the bailiff (bailiff as intermediary instrument)
• Bailiff acts on citizens through the king (through the king’s authority)

Notable Quotes #

• Damascene: “The Word of God incarnate neither assumed that nature which is considered in naked contemplation… For this is not incarnation, but deception and fiction of incarnation.”
• Augustine (cited by Berquist approvingly): “God assumed the nature of man, not the person.”
• Berquist’s summary: “So the person is not fore-understood in human nature to the assumption of that. But more has itself as the term, the limit, the end of the assuming.”

Questions Addressed #

Q: Did the Son of God assume a human person? #

A: No. He assumed human nature without its own personality, which subsists in the divine person. If he assumed a pre-existing person, there would be two persons—one assuming and one assumed, which is erroneous.

Q: Why wasn’t a human person assumed? #

A: Because if the person existed before the assumption, either (1) it would be corrupted in the union (making the assumption vain), or (2) it would remain after the union (creating two persons). The divine person must be the terminus of assumption, not something pre-understood to it.

Q: How can we say Christ “assumed” if nothing pre-exists to be assumed? #

A: We must use the term “assume” in an analogical sense. What is assumed is the human nature; this nature becomes personalized through its union with the divine person. The analogy of the line to the point clarifies this: the line is “assumed” to the point in the sense that it is drawn to it and receives its endpoint from it.

Q: Should Christ have assumed universal human nature rather than individual human nature? #

A: No. Universal nature cannot subsist by itself; it requires sensible matter and individuals. Universal nature cannot perform individual meritorious acts. And universal nature is intelligible, not sensible—but Christ appeared visibly. Therefore, individual human nature was necessarily assumed.

Q: How is Christ the Savior of all if he assumed only individual human nature? #

A: Christ is common Savior not by community of genus or species (universal predication), but by community of cause (universal causality). As the universal cause of human salvation, his individual nature-in-act suffices to merit salvation for all.

Connections to Broader Thomistic Themes #

• Divine persons and relations: The discussion parallels Thomas’s treatment in De Potentia of how relations constitute divine persons insofar as they are the divine substance, but distinguish divine persons insofar as they are relations
• Two senses of “common”: Extends earlier discussion of Aristotelian metaphysics and the confusion of universal predication with universal causality found in Hegel and Heidegger
• The principle of the first mover: Applied to Christ: the Cleanser must himself be immobile (pure) in the defect he cleanses