Thomas Aquinas

Having set down the necessity of the coming of the Word into flesh, and also its usefulness, the Evangelist consequently makes manifest the manner of the coming, saying, "And the Word was made flesh." And according to this it is connected to what he had said, "He came unto his own"; as if to say: the Word of God came unto his own. But lest you should believe that he came by changing place, he shows the manner in which he came, namely, through the incarnation: for he came in that manner in which he was sent by the Father, by whom he was sent inasmuch as he was made flesh. Galatians IV, 4: "God sent his Son, made of a woman," etc., where Augustine says: "he was sent in the same way in which he was made." But according to Chrysostom it is connected to that, "he gave them power," etc.; as if to say: if you ask whence he was able to give this power to men, that they should become sons of God, the Evangelist answers that "the Word was made flesh," and gave us that we might become sons of God. Galatians IV, 5: "God sent his Son, that we might receive the adoption of the sons of God." But according to Augustine it is connected in this way to what he had said, "but they were born of God": for since it seemed hard, as it were, that men should be born of God, therefore, as if in argument of this saying, namely that it might be believed that he is the Word, the Evangelist adds that which seems less believable, namely, that "the Word was made flesh." As if to say: do not marvel if men are born of God, because "the Word was made flesh," that is, God was made man.

It must be noted that from this which is said, "the Word was made flesh," certain persons, understanding it badly, have taken occasion for error. For some have held that the Word was so made flesh that either it itself or something of it was converted into flesh, just as when flour becomes bread, and air becomes fire. And this was Eutyches, who posited a mingling of the natures in Christ, saying that in him there was one and the same nature of God and of man. But the falsity of this opinion appears manifestly, because, as was said above, "the Word was God." But God is immutable, as is said in Malachi III, 6: "I am God, and I change not," whence in no way can it be that he should be converted into another nature. It must therefore be said, against Eutyches, "the Word was made flesh": the Word assumed flesh, not that the Word itself is the flesh itself; just as if we should say: a man was made white, not that he himself is the whiteness itself, but that he assumed whiteness.

There were also others who, although they believed that the Word was not changed into flesh but that it assumed it, nevertheless said that it assumed flesh without a soul; for if it had assumed ensouled flesh, the Evangelist would have said: the Word was made flesh with a soul. And such was the error of Arius, who said that in Christ there was no soul, but the Word of God was there in place of a soul. And the falsity of this position appears, both because it is repugnant to Sacred Scripture, which in many places makes mention of the soul of Christ, as that in Matthew XXVI, 38: "My soul is sorrowful even unto death"; and also because certain passions of the soul are recounted of Christ, which can in no way be in the Word of God, nor even in the flesh alone, as that in Matthew XXVI, 37: "Jesus began to grow sorrowful and to be sad"; and also because God cannot be the form of any body; nor can even an angel be united to a body in the manner of a form, since according to its nature it is separated from a body; but the soul is united to the body as a form. Therefore the Word of God cannot be the form of a body. Furthermore, it is established that flesh does not attain the species of flesh except through the soul: which is clear, because when the soul withdraws from the body of a man, or of an ox, the flesh of the man or of the ox is not called flesh except equivocally. If therefore the Word did not assume ensouled flesh, it is manifest that it did not assume flesh. But "the Word was made flesh"; therefore it assumed ensouled flesh.

There were, however, others who, moved by this, said that the Word did indeed assume ensouled flesh, but with a sensitive soul only, not an intellective one, in place of which they said the Word was in the body of Christ. And this was the error of Apollinaris, who at one time followed Arius, but at length, on account of the aforesaid authorities, was compelled to posit some soul in Christ, which could be the subject of these passions, yet in such a way that it lacked reason and intellect, but in place of these the Word was in the man Christ. But this manifestly appears to be false, because it is repugnant to the authority of Sacred Scripture, in which certain things are said of Christ which can be found neither in the divinity, nor in the sensitive soul, nor in the flesh: such as that he marveled, as is said in Matthew VIII, 10; but marveling is a passion of the rational and intellective soul, since it is a desire of knowing the hidden cause of an effect that is seen. So therefore, just as sorrow compels us to posit in Christ the sensitive part of the soul, against Arius, so marveling compels us to posit in him the intellective part of the soul, against Apollinaris. The same also appears through reason. For just as there is no flesh without a soul, so there is no true human flesh without a human soul, which is the intellective soul. If therefore the Word assumed flesh ensouled with a sensitive soul only, and not a rational one, it did not assume human flesh: and so it could not be said, "God was made man." Furthermore, the Word assumed human nature for this purpose, that it might repair it. Therefore it repaired that which it assumed. If therefore it did not assume a rational soul, it would not have repaired it: and so no fruit would come to us from the incarnation of the Word, which is false. Therefore "the Word was made flesh," that is, it assumed flesh ensouled with a rational soul.

But perhaps you say: if the Word assumed flesh thus ensouled, why did the Evangelist not make mention of the rational soul, but only of the flesh, saying, "the Word was made flesh"? I answer that it must be said that the Evangelist did this for four reasons. First, to show the truth of the incarnation against the Manichees, who said that the Word did not assume true flesh, but only phantasmal flesh, since it would not be fitting that the Word of the good God should assume flesh, which they said to be the creature of the Devil. And therefore the Evangelist, in order to exclude this, made mention especially of the flesh; just as Christ also, in Luke XXIV, 39, when the disciples thought him to be a phantasm, showed the truth of the resurrection, saying: "A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see me to have." Second, to demonstrate the greatness of God's kindness toward us. For it is established that the rational soul is more conformed to God than the flesh, and indeed it would have been a great sacrament of piety if the Word had assumed a human soul, as being conformed to itself; but to assume also flesh, so far removed from the simplicity of its own nature, was an indication of a much fuller, indeed inestimable, piety; according to which the Apostle says in 1 Timothy III, 16: "And evidently great is the sacrament of piety, which was manifested in the flesh." And therefore, in order to show this, the Evangelist made mention only of the flesh. Third, to demonstrate the truth and singularity of the union in Christ. For to other holy men God is indeed united, as regards the soul only; whence it is said in Wisdom VII, 27: "Through nations she conveyeth herself into holy souls, making them the friends of God and prophets." But that the Word of God should be united to flesh, this is singular in Christ, according to that in Psalm CXL, 10: "I am alone until I pass"; Job XXVIII, 17: "Gold shall not be equalled to it." Wishing therefore to show this singularity of the union in Christ, the Evangelist made mention only of the flesh, saying, "the Word was made flesh." Fourth, to intimate the fittingness of human reparation. For man was made weak through the flesh, and therefore the Evangelist, wishing to intimate that the coming of the Word was fitting to our reparation, made mention especially of the flesh, in order to show that the weak flesh was repaired through the flesh of the Word; and this is what the Apostle says, Romans VIII, 3: "For what was impossible to the law, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and of sin, condemned sin in the flesh."

But it is asked, why did the Evangelist not say, the Word assumed flesh, but rather, "the Word was made flesh"? I answer that it must be said that he did this in order to exclude the error of Nestorius, who said that in Christ there were two persons, and two sons, and that the son of the Virgin was another; whence he did not grant that the Blessed Virgin was the mother of God. But according to this God would not have been made man; because it is impossible that of two singulars, which are diverse according to supposit, one should be predicated of the other. Whence if the person, or supposit, of the Word is one, and the person, or supposit, of the man in Christ is another, then it will not be true, as the Evangelist says, that "the Word was made flesh." For something is made in order that it may be; if therefore the Word were not man, it could not be said that the Word was made man. And therefore the Evangelist significantly said "was made," and did not say "assumed," in order to show that the union of the Word to the flesh is not such as is the assumption of the prophets, who were not assumed into the unity of the supposit, but to the prophetic act: but it is such as would truly make God man, and man God, that is, that God should be man.

There were also others who, not understanding the manner of the incarnation, held indeed that the aforesaid assumption terminated at the truth of the person, confessing in God one person of God and man; but nevertheless they say that in him there were two hypostases, or two supposits, one of the human nature, created and temporal, the other of the divine, uncreated and eternal. And such is the first opinion which is set down in Book III of the Sentences, distinction VI. But according to this opinion this proposition does not hold true: God was made man, and man was made God. And therefore this opinion was condemned as heretical in the Fifth Council, where it is said: if anyone should say in the Lord Jesus Christ one person and two hypostases, let him be anathema. And therefore the Evangelist, in order to exclude every assumption which does not terminate at the unity of the person, uses this word "was made."

But if you ask, how is the Word man, it must be said that it is man in that manner in which any other is man, namely, having a human nature. Not that the Word is the human nature itself, but it is a divine supposit united to a human nature. But this which is said, "the Word was made flesh," does not signify any change in the Word, but only in the nature newly assumed into the unity of the divine person. And "the Word was made flesh," through the union to the flesh. But union is a certain relation. Now relations newly said of God in respect to creatures do not imply a change on the part of God, but on the part of the creature relating itself to God in a new manner.

There follows, "and dwelt among us"; which indeed is distinguished from the foregoing in two ways. First, so that it is said that above the Evangelist treated of the incarnation of the Word, saying, "the Word was made flesh"; but here he intimates the manner of the incarnation, saying, "and dwelt among us." For according to Chrysostom and Hilary, through this that the Evangelist says "the Word was made flesh," someone might understand that it was converted into flesh, and that there are not two distinct natures in Christ, but only one nature commingled out of the human and the divine; therefore the Evangelist, excluding this, added "and dwelt among us," that is, in our nature, yet in such a way that it remained distinct in its own. For that which is converted into something does not remain, from that into which it is converted, distinct according to nature; but that which is not distinguished from something does not dwell in it; because to dwell implies a distinction of the one dwelling and that in which it dwells. But the Word dwelt in our nature; therefore it is naturally distinct from it. And therefore, inasmuch as the human nature was distinct in Christ from the nature of the Word, it is called the dwelling-place of the divinity and the temple, according to that below, II, 21: "But he spoke of the temple of his body." And indeed, although this is soundly said by the aforesaid saints, the calumny is nevertheless to be guarded against which some incur from this. For the ancient doctors and saints so pursued the errors arising concerning the faith that sometimes they seemed to slip into contrary errors; just as Augustine, against the Manichees, who destroyed the freedom of choice, disputes in such a way that he seems to have fallen into the heresy of Pelagius. In this manner therefore the Evangelist John, lest by this that he had said, "the Word was made flesh," there should be understood in Christ a confusion or transmutation of the natures, added "and dwelt among us": from which word Nestorius, taking occasion for error, said that the Son of God was so united to man that nevertheless there was not one person of God and man: for he wished that the Word was united to the human nature by indwelling alone through grace. But from this it follows that the Son of God is not man. For the elucidation of these things, it must be known that in Christ we can consider two things, namely, nature and person. But in Christ the distinction is regarded according to nature, not according to person, which is one and the same in the two natures; because the human nature in Christ was assumed into the unity of the person. The indwelling, therefore, which the saints posit, is to be referred to the nature, so that it is said that "he dwelt among us," that is, the nature of the Word dwelt in our nature, not according to hypostasis or person, which is the same for both natures in Christ. But that which Nestorius blasphemes is evidently refuted by the authority of Sacred Scripture. For the Apostle, in Philippians II, 6, calls the union of God and man an emptying, saying of the Son of God: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant." But God is not said to empty himself God from the fact that he indwells a rational creature through grace, because thus the Father and the Holy Spirit would be emptied, since they too are said to indwell man through grace; for Christ says, speaking of himself and of the Father, below XIV, 23: "We will come to him, and will make our abode with him." But of the Holy Spirit the Apostle says, 1 Corinthians III, 16: "The Spirit of God dwelleth in us." Furthermore, if Christ were not personally God, he would have said most presumptuously: "I and the Father are one"; and, "before Abraham was made, I am." But "I" indicates the person of the one speaking; and it was a man who spoke; who, as one with the Father, pre-existed before Abraham.

It can also be connected in another way, so that it is said that above he treated of the incarnation of the Word, but now he treats of the manner of life of the incarnate Word, saying, "and dwelt among us," that is, he conversed familiarly among us apostles, according to what Peter says, Acts I, 21: "In all the time in which the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us." Baruch IV, 38: "Afterwards he was seen upon earth." But the Evangelist added this on account of two things. First, in order to show the wonderful conformity of the Word to men, among whom he so conversed that he seemed as if one of them. For he willed not only to be made like to men in nature, but also willed to be together with them in living together and in familiar converse, without sin, so that thus he might draw to himself men allured by the sweetness of his converse. Second, in order to show the truth of his testimony. For the Evangelist had said above certain great things concerning the Word, and was still going to say many wonderful things concerning him, and therefore, in order that his testimony might be made more credible, he took, as it were in argument of the truth, that he had conversed with Christ, saying, "and dwelt among us." As if to say: I can well bear testimony concerning him, because I conversed with him; 1 John I, 1: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the word of life," etc., and Acts X, 40: "he gave him to be made manifest, not to all the people, but to witnesses preordained by God," that is, to us who ate and drank with him.