20. Christ's Assumption of Body and Soul

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

• Whether Christ assumed a true body versus the Manichean claim that it was merely a phantasm or imaginary vision
• Whether Christ assumed an earthly/fleshly body versus the claim that He assumed a celestial (heavenly) body
• Whether Christ assumed a human soul versus Arian and Apollinarian denials that the Word replaced the soul as life-principle
• The meaning of synecdoche in Scripture: why “the Word was made flesh” emphasizes the flesh while implicitly including soul and spirit

Key Arguments #

Why Christ Must Have a True (Not Phantasm) Body #

Three-fold reasoning:

1. From human nature itself: If Christ assumed human nature, He necessarily assumed a true body, since a true body pertains to the definition of human nature (per Aristotle, Metaphysics VII)
2. From the effects of Incarnation: If the body were merely phantasm, Christ would not have truly suffered, died, or been buried. Since true salvation requires a true effect proportioned to the cause, a true body is necessary
3. From divine dignity and truth: Christ is Truth itself. Therefore, His work cannot involve fiction or deception. When He appeared with flesh and bones, He truly possessed them

Against this: Objectors cite Philippians 2:7 (“made in the likeness of man”) to suggest mere appearance, or cite Old Testament theophanies as merely visionary

Why Christ Must Have an Earthly (Not Celestial) Body #

Three-fold reasoning:

1. From human nature: The form of man specifically requires earthly matter—flesh and bones—as its proportioned material substrate. To assume a celestial body would be to assume an inhuman form
2. From the truth of Christ’s operations: A celestial body, being incorruptible and incapable of suffering, would not truly hunger, thirst, or undergo passion and death. These historical acts would become mere appearances
3. From divine truth: If Christ truly possessed a celestial body while appearing earthly, He would deceive humanity, contradicting His nature as Truth

Against this: Objectors cite 1 Corinthians 15:47 (“the second man from heaven”) and 1 Corinthians 15:50 (“flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God”)

Why Christ Must Have a Human Soul #

Three-fold reasoning:

1. From Scripture: The Gospels narrate that Christ wondered, became angry, was saddened, hungered—operations proper to the soul, not the Word’s divine nature alone. If these are metaphorical, then all Gospel narrative loses its historical reliability
2. From the utility/efficacy of Incarnation: The soul, especially the rational soul, is the seat of sin and the capability for grace. If Christ did not assume the soul, the soul would not be redeemed. Augustine argues this implies either that God cannot heal what is desperate (denying omnipotence), or that He did not make the soul (denying His universal causality)
3. From the truth of human nature: Human nature is constituted by the union of soul and body. The soul is the form that makes the body actually human flesh—without it, what remains is merely corpse, not living body

Against this: Objectors claim John 1:14 (“the Word was made flesh”) makes no mention of soul, and note that the Word itself is the fountain of eternal life (Psalm 35), making a soul seemingly superfluous

Important Definitions #

• Synecdoche (σύν + ἐχω): A figure of speech where the part stands for the whole, or the whole for the part. “Flesh” in “the Word was made flesh” stands for the whole man (body, soul, spirit)
• Phantasm: An illusory or imaginary appearance without real substance; in this context, a body without true material existence
• Incorruptible: Incapable of undergoing corruption or substantial change; a property traditionally attributed to heavenly bodies in medieval cosmology
• Form and matter (μορφή and ὕλη): The soul is the form that actualizes the potential of bodily matter; without the soul as form, matter does not constitute a human body
• Equivocal (ἀνώνυμος): Speaking of something in only name, without the reality. The eye of a corpse is called an eye only equivocally, lacking the power to see

Examples & Illustrations #

• The transfiguration: Mentioned as a manifestation of Christ’s glory shining through His body, not replacing it
• The cook with leftovers: An illustration (attributed to Chesterton) that the greatest artist shows power not by working with precious materials but by creating marvels from humble clay—thus God’s Word shows greater power by assuming earthly flesh than by assuming a celestial body
• The eye of a corpse: Aristotle’s example that the eye of a dead man is only equivocally an eye, having lost the form that made it actually an eye—illustrating that without the soul as form, the body is not actually human
• Friendship mediated and then sustained: Augustine’s logic that if the soul mediates between Word and flesh to establish union, yet the union remains even after the soul departs (as friendship remains after a mediator leaves), this shows the soul’s instrumental rather than constitutive role

Notable Quotes #

“If the body of Christ was a phantasm, then Christ deceived. And if He deceived, He is not truth. But Christ is truth itself.” — Augustine, cited by Thomas

“This itself pertains to the greatest glory of God, that an infirm and earthly body He promoted to such sublimity.” — Thomas’s response to the objection that the best should be attributed to God

“The Son of God was born, not in thought only, as it were having an imaginative body, but a true body.” — From the book on ecclesiastical dogmas (De fide orthodoxa), cited as Thomas’s foundational authority

“Flesh is laid down for the whole man, as if one were to say that the word was made man.” — Thomas, explaining the synecdoche in John 1:14

Questions Addressed #

Why does Scripture say “the Word was made flesh” without mentioning soul or spirit? #

Answer: This is a synecdoche—the part (flesh) stands for the whole (man). Three reasons justify this phrasing:

1. Visibility: Through flesh, the Son became visible (“we saw His glory”)
2. Divine humility: Mentioning the lowest element emphasizes God’s condescension more powerfully than mentioning the soul
3. A fortiori implication: If He assumed even lowly flesh, He certainly assumed the nobler soul

Doesn’t the Word as “fountain of life” make a human soul superfluous? #

Answer: The Word is the efficient cause of life; the soul is the formal cause. These are not competing but complementary: the presence of the greater efficient cause (Word) makes the formal cause (soul) more necessary, not less—as a fire’s heat is more actively required when fire is present, not less.

How can Christ be “from heaven” (1 Corinthians 15:47) if He has earthly flesh? #

Answer: Two ways of speaking:

1. By reason of divine nature: The Word came from heaven in that it took on human nature in the world, yet remained in heaven as God
2. By reason of body itself: The body was not brought from heaven but formed from Mary’s flesh by the power of the Holy Spirit (“formed by a heavenly power”), thus heavenly in its formation though earthly in its substance

How does “flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom” (1 Corinthians 15:50) apply to Christ? #

Answer: “Flesh and blood” here signifies not the substance but the corruption of flesh and blood. Christ’s flesh was not subject to this corruption; it was incorruptible after resurrection. The statement applies to human corruption, not to human substance.

If the soul is the medium between Word and flesh, doesn’t separation of soul at death break the union? #

Answer: The soul makes the flesh suitable for union and is the instrument of union, but once the hypostatic union is established, it remains. This parallels how friendship remains after a mediator departs—the mediator establishes what persists beyond mediation.

Methodological Notes #

• Thomistic structure: Each article presents objections (solvuntur ita), a counter-authority (sed contra), and a systematic response (respondeo) with three-fold reasoning, followed by replies to objections
• Parallel arguments: Thomas employs the same three-fold reasoning structure for body, soul, and (implicitly) intellect, showing conceptual consistency
• Hierarchy of causes: Arguments move from nature (what human nature requires), to efficacy (what redemption requires), to dignity (what divine nature requires)

Heresies Explicitly Refuted #

• Manichaeans: Denied true body; claimed matter is evil and Christ took only phantasm
• Arians: Denied the soul; claimed the Word replaced it
• Apollinarians: Admitted soul but denied rational intellect; claimed the Word replaced the mind
• Valentinians: Claimed celestial body, not earthly flesh