Consequences of the Hypostatic Union

By the Incarnation God himself became man. The nature of man is assumed to the nature of God and is joined with it in thehypostatic union. Hence, the proposition God is man is literally true.

By reason of the hypostatic union, the proposition Man is God is also literally true. That is, of course, itis true when the word man is taken to mean this man Christ; the proposition is not true when the word man means any man at all or all men.

It is not accurate nor right to speak of Christ as a lordly man. Christ is not merely lordly; he is the Lord himself.

Following the hypostatic union in which God has assumed human nature in the unity of the divine Person of the Son, that which can be predicated of human nature can now be predicated of God. Yet we must carefully notice whether the predication refers to this one Person in his human nature, or to this one Person in his divine Nature. And thus when we predicate immortality of Christ as God, and mortality of Christ as man, we are not contradicting ourselves. We say truly that Christ is God, and that Christ died on the cross. But we cannot and do not say that God died on the cross. What we say is this: Christ who is God-made-Man died on the cross as man, or, Christ died in his human nature, but not in his divine Nature.

Therefore, what is proper to human nature can be predicated of God in so far as God has assumed human nature, but what is thus predicable of human nature cannot be predicated of God as God apart from human nature.

To say God was made man is strictly true. But this does not mean that God was created, or made simply. It means that human nature, which is a creature, was assumed to the eternal God. To say that God was made man is not to suggest that the changeless God was changed,but that human nature was changed inasmuch as it nowsubsists in a divine Person without constituting a human personality.

It is not, however, accurate to say Man was made God, as though human nature were deified. The phrase would suggest that an existing human nature (and hence a human person,since human nature cannot exist except in a person, human or divine) was made into God. Now, the human nature of Christ was notin existence before it existed in Christ; the human nature of Christ, from the beginning of its existence, subsists by reason ofthe divine Personality of the Son.

We cannot say Christ is a creature unless we add inhis human nature; for Christ is God, and when we speak of Christ simply, we think at once of God-made-man. But there is nothing misleading in saying that Christ was born, Christ suffered, Christ died and was buried; for it is manifest that we are speaking thus of Christ as man. When there is any possibility of doubt about the meaning of our words in reference to Christ, we should always add an explanatory phrase. Thus, when we say that Christ is one with the Father and the Holy Ghost, we know, without need of more words, that we are speaking of the divine Nature, and mean Christ as God. But if we say that Christ is inferior to the Father, some people may think that we are denying the Godhead of Christ; hence, we should say, rather, that Christ asman, or Christ in his human nature, is inferior to the Father.

To say, “This man (Christ) began to exist,“is, for reasons just given, to make a misleading statement. For the term this man is easily interpreted as this person. Now, the Person of Christ is divine and eternal, and did not begin to exist. Says St. Paul (Heb. 13:8): “Jesus Christ, yesterday, today, and the same forever.”

Therefore while it is correct to say that Christ asman is a creature, it is not right to say Christ as this man is a creature, for the phrase Christ as this man is usually understood to mean Christ as this Person, and the Person that is Christ is God the Son, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

Nor is it correct to say Christ as man is God, forthis would be to identify the human and the divine Nature in Christ; that is, it would make the two distinct natures in Christ into one nature, and this is heretical doctrine. Yet we can say Christ as this man is God, for, in this expression, the term this man means this Person.

It is not true to say that Christ as man is ahypostasis or person, for this would be to make two persons, one human and one divine, out of the one divine Person of the Son of God which subsists with two natures.