Part I Chapter II §2: The Adamic Origin of the Human Nature of Christ

§2: The Adamic Origin of the Human Nature of Christ

SECTION 2 THE ADAMIC ORIGIN OF THE HUMAN NATURE OF CHRIST The dogma that Christ is true man, implies not only the reality and integrity of His human nature, but likewise the origin of that nature from Mary. It is this latter fact which beyond aught else guarantees the reality and integrity of our Lord’s sacred manhood. In other words, Christ is truly and integrally a man because, by maternal generation from the Virgin-mother Mary, He is a ” Son of Adam ” according to the flesh, and consequently our ” Brother.” To establish unity of species between Himself and us it would have been sufficient for the Logos to have brought His humanity with Him from Heaven. But his humanity is specifically identical with ours. It is founded upon kinship of race and blood relation. By His ” real incorporation with our kind ” in Adam, Jesus Christ is “bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh.” i. Heretical Doctrines on this Subject vs. the Teaching of the Church. — a) Certain Gnostics of the second century, notably Valentinus 1 and Apelles, a disciple of Marcion,2 who held an attenuated Docetism, admitted l Valentinus flourished about 2 Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Pa* A. D. 150. His false teaching (see trology, p. 80; Tixeront, History of Burt, Dictionary of Sects, pp. 612 Dogmas, Vol. I, pp. 183 sqq. sqq.) was refuted by St. Irenseus. 61 the real:/ and ir. tegrity of Christ 5 rnzran nature only after a raihicn. Their theory was that He pos^e~ed a “celestial body.” This teachh^ involved a denial f 1 ) of the earth! v origin of Christ’s manhood, and f 2 ) of His conception and birth by the Virgin Mary. In describing the latter Valentinus employed the simile of “water flowing- through a channel.” 3 Similar errors were harbored by the Paulicians of Svria/ and, in modern times, by the Anabaptists, the Quakers, and certain pseudo-mystics of the sixteenth century.* b) The Church never for a moment left her faithful children in doubt as to the true origin and descent of Jesus. The Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) defined: “Docemus, eundetnque [Christum] perfectum in deitate et eundem perfectum in humanitate, Deum verum et hominem verum, eundem ex anima rationali et corpore, consubstantialem Patri secundum deitatem, consubstantialem nobis eundem secundum humanitatem (bfioavauw r$ irarpl Kara -njv deorifra^ teal 6/ov jfiuv rbv aitrbv Karh. rrjv avdpwiroTqTa) y per omnia nobis similem absque peccato; ante saecula qui At dtA au\vjvot tovo. Cfr. Epi- pp. 76i sqq.; cfr. also Funk-Cappa■jnlut, Hair., XXXI, 7. delta, A Manual of Church History, rfJi^ I1•u,^c,

dem de Patre genitum (ycwg&W) secundum deitatem, in novissimis autem diebus eundem propter nos et propter nostram salutem, ex Maria Virgine Dei genitHce (** Maptas Trjs napOevov rrjs OeoroKov) secundum humanitatem — We teach that He [Christ] is perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood, being truly God and truly man; that He is of a rational soul and body, consubstantial with the Father as touching the Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching His manhood, being like us in all things, sin excepted; that, as touching His Godhead, He was begotten of the Father before the worlds ; and, as touching His manhood, He was for us and for our salvation born of Mary, the Virgin, Mother of God.” 6 This is a most important dogmatic definition, and in order to grasp its full import the student should ponder the following points : (1) Christ’s homoousia with the Father and His consubstantiality with the human race are not co-ordinate relations. The divine homoousia is based on ” numerical identity ” or ” tautousia” 7 whereas Christ’s consubstantiality with man rests on a purely “specific identity,” which, however, in consequence of our common descent from Adam, is a true blood-relationship. (2) This blood-relationship arises formally and immediately from the fact of Christ’s being engendered in the Virgin Mary. Had He merely passed through her virginal womb, as Valentinus and his fellow sectaries e Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiri- 7 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Divine dion, n. 148. Trinity, pp. 255 sqq. held, no blood-relationship would have been established between Him and us. Hence the need of accentuating the phrase : ycwrfiivra ac Mapias. (3) In order to show that Christ’s temporal generation from His mother is equally true and real with His divine generation from the Eternal Father, the Council applies to both the one word ycwqOivra, without, of course, thereby denying the fundamental distinction between divine and creatural generation. (4) The dogma would not be complete without a distinct reference to the purpose of the Redemption, inasmuch as the Adamic origin of Christ is intimately bound up with His mediatorial office and the redemption of the human race. The creeds, including that of Chalcedon, bring out this soteriological relation by the typical additament: “Propter nos et propter nostram salutem (84’ rjfias kqI 81a ttjv fjfJLeripav awrqpiav) .” 2. The Teaching of Revelation. — Holy Scripture teaches that Christ became consubstantial with man by descent from Adam, for the purpose of redeeming the human race, of which He is a member and a scion. a) In the Old Testament the Redeemer was promised, first as “the seed of the woman,” 8 later as “the seed of Abraham,” and in fine as “the seed of David.” The New Testament frequently refers to Him as “the Son of David.” 9 8 Gen. Ill, 15 (the ” Protcvan- IX, 27; XII, 23; Luke I, 32; Rom. gelium”). Cfr. H. P. Liddon, The I, 3; Apoc V, 5. Cfr. H. J. Coleity of Our Lord and Saviour ridge, S, J., The Preparation of the >*iw Christ, pp. 109 sqq. Incarnation, pp. 209 sqq., London • “Filius David/’ Matth. I, z; 1894. Whenever the inspired writers of the New Testament wish to point to the fulfilment of the Old Testament prophecies in the life of Jesus Christ, they strongly emphasize His conception and birth from the Virgin Mary. Cf r. Luke I, 31 sq. : ” Ecce concipies in utero et paries filium… . Filius Altissimi vocabitur, et dabit Mi Dominus Deus sedem David patris eius — Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son… . He … shall be called the Son of the Most High ; and the Lord shall give unto Him the throne of David his father.” Luke I, 35 : ” Quod nascetur ex te sanctum, vocabitur Filius Dei — The Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” Matth. I, 16: ” lacob autem genuit Ioseph, virum Mariae, de qua natus est lesus, qui vocatur Christus (i£ rjs iya^fjOrf Ttyrovs 6 Acyo/ucvos Xptoros) — And Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.” Rom. I, 3 : ” Factus ex semine David secundum carnem — Who was made of the seed of David, according to the flesh.” Gal. IV, 4: ” Misit Deus Filium suum factum ex muliere10 — God sent his Son, made of a woman.” These and many similar texts prove, (1) that Christ is a genuine descendant of Adam, and (2) that He traces his lineage by maternal generation through Mary, who was a daughter of Adam. The soteriological aspect is sharply accentuated by St. Paul when he says that the human race was redeemed by One who was not only God made man, but also of the blood of Adam. Heb. II, 1 1 and 14 : ” Qui enim sanctificat et qui sanctiHcantur, ex uno [scil. Adamo] omnes; propter quam causam non confunditur (&rai

ret eunt, qui habebat mortis imperium, id est, diabolum — For both he that sanctifieth, and they who are sanctified, are all of one. For which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren … that, through death, he might destroy him who had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil.,, 11 b) In considering the Patristic tradition we note the remarkable fact that the early Fathers and ecclesiastical writers, down to the time of Fulgentius, attribute very great importance to the preposition ex in the Scriptural formula f actus ex muliere. 12 Thus Tertullian observes in his work De Came Christi: ” Per virginem dicitis natum, non ex virgine, eft in vulva, non ex vulva. Quia et angelus in somnis ad Ioseph: ’ nam quod in ea natum est/ inquit, ’ de Spiritu S. est,’ non dixit ex ea. Nempe tamen, etsi ex ea dixisseft, in ea dixerat; in ea enim erat, quod ex ea erat… . Sed bene, quod idem dicit Matthaeus originem Domini decurrens ab Abraham usque ad Mariam: ’ Iacob/ inquit, * generavit Ioseph, virum Mariae, ex qua nascitur Christus! Sed et Paulus grammaticis istis silentium imponit: ’ misit,’ inquit, ’ Deus Filium suum factum ex muliere/ Numquid per mulierem, aut in muliere?* 18 And St. Basil in his treatise on the Holy Ghost says: To show that the God-bearing flesh was formed of human material,14 the Apostle chose a striking phrase; li On Satan’s ” reign of death ” 12 yevdficror iic yvt>aiK6s. Gal. cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Cod the Author IV, 4. of Nature and the Supernatural, pp. is Tertullian, De Came Christi, c. 291, 344 sqq. 29. 1 &k tov dpSptawelov (pvpdfiarosCHRIST’S ADAMIC ORIGIN 67 for the expression ‘through the woman* might suggest the notion of a mere transit ; but this other [phrase] : ‘out of the woman/ sufficiently explains the communication of nature existing between Him who was born and His mother.” 15 We note in passing that Christ’s descent from Adam, and His blood-relationship with us, is not impaired by the circumstance that His conception was effected without male cooperation. For, as St. Ignatius observes, ” Our God Jesus Christ was conceived 16 by Mary as the fruit of her womb, according to the decree of God, — from the seed of David, ‘tis true, but of the Holy Ghost.”17 Whoever is born of a daughter of Adam, though without male cooperation, is a genuine descendant of Adam in all respects except original sin.18 Why did Christ choose to enter into blood-relationship with the children of Adam? Following St. Paul the Fathers hold that the reason is to be found in the ulterior purpose of the Redemption. According to the classic dictum of St. Irenaeus, Christ, as man, was not, like Adam, formed of “the slime of the earth,” but born of a daughter of Adam, * ut non alia plasmatio fieret neque alia esset plasmatio, quae salvaretur, sed eadetn ipsa recapitularetur* 19 or, in the words of St. Athanasius, in order that the nations be of the same body and have a share with Christ. 20 Some of the Fathers 15 St Basil, De Spiritu Sancto, c. thor of Nature and the Supernat5, n. 12. Other Patristic comments ural, pp. 279 sqq. The perpetual on Gal. IV, 4 in Petavius, De In- virginity of Mary will be treated in cam. Verbi, V, 16. Cfr. Durand- Mariology. Cfr. Durand-Bruneau, Bruneau, The Childhood of Jesus The Childhood of Jesus Christ, pp. Christ, pp. 149 sqq., Philadelphia 153 sqq. 1910. 10 Contr. Haeres., Ill, 21, xo. 16 iicvoop4i$ri, 20 facre elrai rh, i$rn fffocufia 17 S. Ign. M., Ep. ad Ephes., n. xal ov/ifUroxCL rov Xpurrov. 18. Contr. Apollin., II, 5. 18 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God the Au68 DUALITY IN UNITY say that Christ assumed the flesh of the entire human race for the purpose of redemption. Thus, e. g., St. Hilary : ” The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, i. e., by assuming the nature of the entire human race.” 21 And, still more graphically St. Leo the Great : ” He dwelled among us, whom the Godhead of the Word had fitted to itself, whose flesh, taken from the womb of the Virgin, we are… . He made His own the substance of our body, not of any material whatever, but of our proper substance.” 22 Of course, these are hyperboles. 3. Incidental Theological Questions. — a) Although Sacred Scripture frequently refers to the Blessed Virgin Mary as “the mother of Jesus,“28 it cannot but surprise the careful student that Christ Himself never calls her by the tender name of “mother.” In Matth. XII, 46 sqq. He even expressly rejects this name and with a semblance of harshness points to the higher duty incumbent on Him of performing the will of His Heavenly Father. At the marriage of Cana Mary is worried because ” they have no wine ; and Jesus saith to her: Woman,24 what is that to me and to thee ? My hour is not yet come.” 25 From the cross He charged her : ” Woman, behold thy son/’ and committed her to the care of his favorite Apostle with the 21 ” Verbum caro factum est et suam fecit, non de quacunque tnahabitavit in nobis, naturam scilicet teria, sed de substantia proprie nouniversi humani generis assumens.” stra.” Cfr. Franzelin, De Verbo 22 Serm. de Nativ,, X, c. 3 : Christologia, thes. 9. ” Habit avit in nobis, quos sibi Verbi 23 Cfr. Matth. I, 18; II, 21; Luke divinitas coaptavit, cuius caro de I, 43; John II, x, et passim, utero Virginis sump t a nos sumus. 2lMulier, yvwai. ♦ . . Substantiam nostri corporis 25 John II, 4. In Ps„ 51, 7. Incarnato, thes. 14; Stentrup, THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY 69 words : ” Behold thy mother.” 26 Though this manner of speaking, under the circumstances, is pathetic rather than surprising, the two passages Matth. XII, 46 sqq. and John II, 4 cannot be satisfactorily explained by the observation that the word ” woman ” among the Jews and Greeks denoted respect and esteem for the one thus addressed. We must seek for a deeper theological explanation. This may be found (1) in the fact that it was eminently proper for our Divine Redeemer to put His relations to His Heavenly Father above the ties of flesh and blood, and (2) in the consideration that, beginning with the Protevangelium, all through Isaias and the Gospels down to the Apocalypse, there runs the name of a ” woman,” which organically connects the ” first Gospel ” with the “second,” and both in turn with the “last,” i. e., St. John’s Revelation.27 Professor (now Bishop) Schafer deserves credit for having brought out this important point of view, which enables us to solve certain knotty exegetical problems in a perfectly satisfactory way. ” Thus,” he says, ” the last book of Divine Revelation points back to the first. The ’ woman ’ of the first promise of salvation in Paradise, the mother of Him who was to crush the head of the Serpent, and through Him the mother of all those who possess spiritual life, and conjointly with her, in this sense, the Church itself, is the ’ sign ’ heralded by Isaias and visibned by St. John on the isle of Patmos.” 28 26 John XIX, 26. sq. satisfactory explanation see the re27Cfr. Apoc. XII, 1: ” Mulier cently published work of B. BartMtnicta sole.” mann, Christus ein Gegner des 28 Alois Schafer, Die Gottesmutter Marienkultusf Jesus und seine in der HI. Schrift, and ed., p. 251, Mutter in den heiligen Evangelien, Munster 1900. For another equally Freiburg 1909. 7o DUALITY IN UNITY b) Regarding the outward aspect of Christ’s human nature we have no reliable information.29 Tertullian asserts that our Lord closely resembled Adam, and he attributes this resemblance to the alleged fact that, in fashioning the body of our proto-parent, the Creator had before Him as in a vision the portrait of ” the Second Adam.” 80 But this is an entirely gratuitous assumption. The conjecture of several Fathers81 that the bodily presence of our Divine Lord was contemptible, arose from a misinterpretation of Is. LIII, 2 sqq., where the Messias is pictured in His cruel suffering. It has been asserted that the impression of our Lord’s face (Volto Santo) on the so-called Veil of St. Veronica, which is preserved in St. Peter’s Basilica at Rome,82 bears a certain family resemblance to a portrait found on an ancient monument at Karnak and believed to represent the Jewish King Roboam, a bodily ancestor of our Lord. But, as has been pointed out, the name appended to this portrait, which was at first deciphered as ” Rehabeam,” is really the name of a city, and the picture itself was most probably intended to be a composite portrait representing the population.88 The description of our Divine Lord contained in the report of the alleged ambassadors of King Abgar, is, 29 On this subject cfr. Vavasseur, De Forma Christi, Paris 1649; G. A. Muller, Die leibliche Gestalt Jesu Christi nach der Urtradition, Gra* 1908; S. J. Hunter, Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II, pp. 463 sqq., London 1895; F. Johnson, Have W ‘e the Likeness of Christ t Chicago 1902. 80 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God the Author of Nature and the Supernatural, pp. 130 sq. 81 E. g., Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, and also Tertullian. 82 Cfr. P. J. Chandlery, S. J., Pilgrim-Walks in Rome, p. 27, 2nd ed„ London 1905. On this and other apocryphal portraits of Christ cfr. C. M. Kaufmann, Christliche Arch’dologie, pp. 406 sqq., Paderborn 1905. 83 F. Kaulen in the Kirchenlexikon, 2nd ed„ Vol. X, 1225, Freiburg 1897. CHRIST’S OUTWARD APPEARANCE 71 of course, quite as spurious as the apocryphal correspondence of Christ with the toparch of Edessa, which has come down to us in the so-called Legend of Thaddeus.84 It is safe to assume that the Son of God, who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, was beautiful in form and figure, of majestic mien and sympathetic presence. The fact that no trustworthy portrait of Him exists may be due to a purposive design on the part of Divine Providence, lest the beauty of His manhood outshine His spiritual form and dignity.35 84 Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Pa- Les Origines de VEglise d’Edesse et trology, pp. 109 sq.; H. Leclercq, la LSgende d’Abgar, Paris 1888. art. ” Abgar ” in the Catholic En- 35 Cfr. Suarei, De Incarn., disp. cyclopedia, Vol. I; J. Tixeront, 32, sect. 2; L. Janssens, De Deo* Homine, Vol. I, pp. 505 sqq. f